{"title":"Reliability and readability of online patient information for contact lens wearers.","authors":"Genis Cardona, Carla Vega","doi":"10.1016/j.clae.2025.102513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to assess the reliability and readability of online patient information regarding contact lens (CL) wear and maintenance, given that many users may employ these resources to supplement or replace professional advice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten frequently asked questions (FAQs) concerning CL wear and maintenance were formulated based on clinical experience and literature search. Each FAQ was used to query Google, and the first 20 eligible websites were analysed, yielding a final sample of 200 websites. Reliability was assessed using the short version of the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, while readability was evaluated through the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) tests. Websites were classified by country of origin and source type. Non-parametric group contrast and variable correlation analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median EQIP score was 68.0 % (range 29.0 %-90.0 %), with 30.0 % of websites providing high-quality content (≥75 %). Websites from encyclopaedias and medical centres/hospitals scored higher in reliability compared to commercial and practitioner sources (p < 0.05). Readability was generally poor, with mean FRES and FKGL values of 55.8 ± 11.3 and 9.9 ± 2.3, respectively, exceeding recommended reading levels. Unexplained technical jargon was found in 59.5 % of websites. Encyclopaedias demonstrated better readability scores than news centres (p = 0.036). A weak but significant inverse correlation was found between EQIP and FRES scores (rho = -0.215; p = 0.002), indicating that higher reliability was associated with slightly better readability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, online patient information regarding CL wear and maintenance evidenced moderately high reliability but insufficient readability. Contact lens wearers may find this information difficult to understand, leading to poor compliance and potential ocular complications. Given the critical role of online resources in patient education, eye care professionals should guide patients towards reliable, comprehensible websites and consider modern communication strategies to enhance compliance and safety in CL wear.</p>","PeriodicalId":49087,"journal":{"name":"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye","volume":" ","pages":"102513"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2025.102513","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to assess the reliability and readability of online patient information regarding contact lens (CL) wear and maintenance, given that many users may employ these resources to supplement or replace professional advice.
Methods: Ten frequently asked questions (FAQs) concerning CL wear and maintenance were formulated based on clinical experience and literature search. Each FAQ was used to query Google, and the first 20 eligible websites were analysed, yielding a final sample of 200 websites. Reliability was assessed using the short version of the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, while readability was evaluated through the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) tests. Websites were classified by country of origin and source type. Non-parametric group contrast and variable correlation analyses were conducted.
Results: The median EQIP score was 68.0 % (range 29.0 %-90.0 %), with 30.0 % of websites providing high-quality content (≥75 %). Websites from encyclopaedias and medical centres/hospitals scored higher in reliability compared to commercial and practitioner sources (p < 0.05). Readability was generally poor, with mean FRES and FKGL values of 55.8 ± 11.3 and 9.9 ± 2.3, respectively, exceeding recommended reading levels. Unexplained technical jargon was found in 59.5 % of websites. Encyclopaedias demonstrated better readability scores than news centres (p = 0.036). A weak but significant inverse correlation was found between EQIP and FRES scores (rho = -0.215; p = 0.002), indicating that higher reliability was associated with slightly better readability.
Conclusion: Overall, online patient information regarding CL wear and maintenance evidenced moderately high reliability but insufficient readability. Contact lens wearers may find this information difficult to understand, leading to poor compliance and potential ocular complications. Given the critical role of online resources in patient education, eye care professionals should guide patients towards reliable, comprehensible websites and consider modern communication strategies to enhance compliance and safety in CL wear.
期刊介绍：
Contact Lens & Anterior Eye is a research-based journal covering all aspects of contact lens theory and practice, including original articles on invention and innovations, as well as the regular features of: Case Reports; Literary Reviews; Editorials; Instrumentation and Techniques and Dates of Professional Meetings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
